Freedom of speech/rights

jaycee · February 5, 2016

Watching a documentary on BBC3 "Troll Hunting",about the abuse/trolling of people and how and why it happens,what can be done about it,one of the people on there said it was everyones right to free speech,that he didnt agree with what was said but would defend the right to say it,so does free speech actually exist theses days?
If a religious person disagrees with gay marriage due to his or her beliefs is it right to condemn them as homophobes for example?

Kanye · February 5, 2016

jaycee said:
If a religious person disagrees with gay marriage due to his or her beliefs is it right to condemn them as homophobes for example?

I'm perhaps a bit rusty at ethics, but isn't that exercising your own freedom of speech? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism. You can say whatever you like until it impinges upon someone elses freedoms.

Bluesoulrebel · February 5, 2016

I know someone on here who's not a fan of freedom of speech. KTF

Foot Long Hot Dog · February 5, 2016

jaycee said:
Watching a documentary on BBC3 "Troll Hunting",about the abuse/trolling of people and how and why it happens,what can be done about it,one of the people on there said it was everyones right to free speech,that he didnt agree with what was said but would defend the right to say it,so does free speech actually exist theses days?
If a religious person disagrees with gay marriage due to his or her beliefs is it right to condemn them as homophobes for example?

People use the 'free speech' argument to attempt to justify their trolling.

Genuine free speech is the right of anyone to express their opinion on any subject without the fear or reprisal.

However, there are limits to what is deemed to be acceptable in our society, so no-one has the 'right' to spout racism, or incite racial hatred etc.

In the context that you're talking about, people are spouting nads in order to get a reaction, posting offensive material in order to get a 'bite'

The example you give there is OK imo though. If a person has an issue with gay marriage, as long as they're not attacking individuals and merely the concept, then they have every right to hold and express that opinion. However, what's their motive for publicly expressing it, is what I would ask.

jaycee · February 5, 2016

Foot Long Hot Dog said:
People use the 'free speech' argument to attempt to justify their trolling.

Genuine free speech is the right of anyone to express their opinion on any subject without the fear or reprisal.

However, there are limits to what is deemed to be acceptable in our society, so no-one has the 'right' to spout racism, or incite racial hatred etc.

In the context that you're talking about, people are spouting nads in order to get a reaction, posting offensive material in order to get a 'bite'

The example you give there is OK imo though. If a person has an issue with gay marriage, as long as they're not attacking individuals and merely the concept, then they have every right to hold and express that opinion. However, what's their motive for publicly expressing it, is what I would ask.

Thats the point im trying to make FLHD,in the context of a democratic society,the foundations are freedom of speech,expression,the right to political and religious beliefs,so even if you dont agree with whats being said does that person still have the right to express those said beliefs?

Foot Long Hot Dog · February 5, 2016

jaycee said:
Thats the point im trying to make FLHD,in the context of a democratic society,the foundations are freedom of speech,expression,the right to political and religious beliefs,so even if you dont agree with whats being said does that person still have the right to express those said beliefs?

Fundamentally yes.

The only caveats being the sort of examples I gave in my previous post. There are certain 'opinions' that are not merely subjective opinion, they're socially and morally unjustifiable in modern society e.g. racism.

mezzrow · February 5, 2016

...though not currently in force in L4, the following expresses my feelings best.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Bungle · February 5, 2016

Bluesoulrebel said:
I know someone on here who's not a fan of freedom of speech. KTF

I think he's having a pop at you here @Groucho

chrismpw · February 5, 2016

I see it as: People should be able to say what they like. And I am free not to listen to them.

Other people see this as: Whoever you are, whatever you say, even if I don't know you, I will hunt it out, take it personally and get professionally offended to as to elicit sympathy and repress other people's freedoms..

jaycee · February 5, 2016

mezzrow said:
...though not currently in force in L4, the following expresses my feelings best.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thats the basis on which a so called free society is built,but does it actually apply in this day and age?
An example being the miners strike here in the 80s were freedom of movement was restricted,freedom of press doesnt really apply either with super injuctions brought into play

mezzrow · February 5, 2016

jaycee said:
Thats the basis on which a so called free society is built,but does it actually apply in this day and age?
An example being the miners strike here in the 80s were freedom of movement was restricted,freedom of press doesnt really apply either with super injuctions brought into play

That restriction and and the resulting super injunctions were clearly unconstitutional, in that case - at least it is in jurisdictions where the first amendment is the law of the land. Mind you, babbling about anything being unconstitutional these days gets one consigned to some nutter loony bin in most elite circles these days, but the truth is the truth...

Doesn't matter which side does it, either.

Perhaps someday the world will come to its senses.

Hellerad · February 5, 2016

Freedom of speech is only freedom from government censorship and does not prevent private citizens from censoring speech. It is not a right to violate other rules/laws through the use of speech. Your freedom of speech ends at another person's freedom from harm, right to privacy, etc. Example, you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theatre and be protected by freedom of speech. You can't libel or slander. You can't commit fraud.

Freedom of speech is also tied to freedom of political expression. The further your "speech" gets from political protest and the closer it approaches a public harm or nuisance, the more unrestrained the government is from limiting or censoring it.